 |
|
The recent release of Suriya-Siva's Kanguva has sparked a significant conversation within the Indian film industry, prompting a reevaluation of other recent high-budget productions. The film's overwhelmingly negative reception has led to a reconsideration of the critical reception given to films like GOAT and Devara, suggesting that perhaps the earlier criticisms were not harsh enough. The author of this review finds Kanguva to be a particularly disappointing film, far surpassing in its awfulness even the much-maligned Indian 2. The central premise of Kanguva, a story spanning centuries and connecting two individuals across time, held initial promise. However, the execution falls drastically short. While the visuals of the 1070s setting are visually impressive, the 2024 storyline is poorly developed and riddled with inconsistencies. The introduction of Zeta, a character suspiciously reminiscent of Eleven from Stranger Things, exemplifies the lack of originality and effort invested in the film’s contemporary elements.
The first act of Kanguva, centered around the bounty hunter Francis Theodore (Suriya), is particularly criticized for its poor execution. The humor is described as forced and unfunny, the script is deemed egregiously weak, and the introduction of Suriya's character is described as infuriating. The excessive use of CGI, seemingly meant to justify the film's large budget, is not only ineffective but also detracts from the narrative. Even good ideas, such as the use of text overlays to introduce characters, are poorly implemented, making the overall experience jarring and inconsistent in tone. The attempt to replicate a Mr. & Mrs. Smith dynamic between Suriya and Disha Patani's characters falters due to the lack of character development and weak writing. The inclusion of a song sequence, 'YOLO', is described as resembling a poorly made advertisement, further contributing to the overall disjointedness of the first act. The psychedelic and trippy elements, coupled with the focus on Disha Patani's wardrobe, overshadow any potential for emotional depth or narrative impact.
As the film progresses, the focus shifts to the 1070s storyline and the world of Kanguva. The production design is praised, but the damage done in the first act is irreparable. The narrative relies on clichés, and the script fails to create compelling characters beyond Kanguva himself. Even the action sequences, though visually grand, are criticized for lacking purpose and originality, drawing comparisons to similar scenes from other films like RRR. The climactic sequence, featuring a parallel struggle between Kanguva and Francis, is marred by poor cross-cutting and an overwhelming cacophony of sound, hindering the emotional impact. The author notes that even Suriya's performance, while dedicated, does not reach his usual high standards. Beyond the specific criticisms of the film's technical aspects and narrative flaws, the review highlights broader issues within the Indian film industry. The massive budget of 350 crores (approximately $42 million USD) and the announcement of a sequel demonstrate a concerning trend of prioritizing spectacle over substance and a reluctance to engage in critical self-reflection.
The film’s depiction of tribal communities is also subject to scrutiny. The author points out that the representation of tribal characters often falls into stereotypical tropes—either as primitive objects of mockery or as violent, animalistic beings. While Kanguva attempts to portray the Perumaachi tribe as noble, the characterization remains superficial and fails to convey the richness and complexity of tribal cultures. Characters are underdeveloped, reduced to mere names rather than individuals with distinct identities and motivations. The portrayal of the neighboring Araththi tribe is equally one-dimensional, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Even the subplot mirroring the appa-ponnu paasam from Siva's Viswasam is criticized for its lack of originality and lazy storytelling. This repetition of familiar tropes highlights the film’s overall lack of creativity and narrative depth. The concluding remarks of the review highlight the disappointing state of mainstream Indian cinema. The film’s reliance on spectacle over substance, the prioritization of sequels over creating solid, well-developed narratives, and the resistance to critical self-reflection among filmmakers are identified as major contributing factors to its failure. The author concludes with the observation that the film’s reception and the subsequent discussions it has generated are critical to the ongoing evolution of the film industry.